EH 5^ 

C%1 



Hollinger 

pH 8.5 

Mill Run F3-1719 






E 458 )EBATE IN CONGRESS Til REATENED— ABOLITION 

.4 LEADERS 

.C87 

Copy 1 



SCHEMES UNMASKED. 



SPEECH 



' u. 



HON. SAMUEL S. COX, OF OHIO, 



DELIVERED 



IN TIIE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, APRIL 6, 1S64. 




Tbo TTouso having under consideration the reso- 
lution to expel Mr. Leng, of Ohio — 

Mr. COX said: 

Mr. Speaker : I approach this matter with 
becoming seriousness. The extraordinary 
spectacle is presented of our Speaker descend- 
ing from the chair to make a motion to expel 
one of the members ef this House for words 
spoken in debate. The occasion calls for more 
than the usual gravity of deliberation. I was 
not present when my colleague (Mr. LongJ 
made the remarks which have called out this 
resolution. I am told by members around me 
that his remarks do not bear the interpreta- 
tion given to them by the speech and resolu- 
tion of the honorable Speaker. Before ares 
olntion of this startling nature was introduced 
we should have had the offici 1 report of those 
remarks in the Globe. If action be demanded 
for the expulsion of a Representative of the 
people, for the exercise of his constitutional 
right of free debate, we should have the most 
authentic record of that debate. As I am in- 
formed, the language of my colleague was so 
qualified as to make it far less objectionable 
than the statement of it in the resolution. 
Still, sir, it may be obnoxious, and yet there 
may be no just ground for this proceeding of 
expulsion. 

Had I been in my seat yesterday, with all 
due respect to my colleague, I should have 
promptly risen and disavowed, oh behalf of 
all the delegation from Ohio with whom I have 
conversed, any sentiments uttered by him or 
any one else, looking to the recognition of the 
confederate government as an independent 
Power. So far as I can learn, there is not a 
member acting with this side of the House, 
unless it be my colleague, who is not opposed 
in every conceivable view, directly oj: indi- 
rectly, to such recognition. 

I speak earnestly and consciously of this, 
because an attempt was made yesterday to 
make partisan capital for the other side out 
of the speech of my colleague. But it should 
be borne in mind that he said that he spoke 



only for himself, and not for his party. He 
was frank, true, and honest in that avowal. 
He did not speak, nor propose to speak, for 
his party. He did not speak for his Demo- 
cratic colleagues. 

Very recently we have had a convention of 
the Democratic people of Ohio, representing 
over one hundred and eighty-five thousand 
voters. In that convention, sir, no sentiments 
were uttered and none would have been tol- 
erated like those to which exception has been 
taken. On the contrary, the only person 
whose name was presented to that convention 
as a delegate to the Democratic national con- 
vention, who avowed sentiments looking to- 
ward the recognition of the confederate States 
and who printed a learned and able pamphlet 
to circulate among the members of the con- 
vention, in exposition of his views, received 
but a few votes among several hundred in that 
convention ; showing that the Democrats of 
Ohio, for whom I speak, are not prepared in 
any shape, however plausible, to accept the 
disintegrating doctrine to which this resolu- 
tion refers. On the contrary, the Democratic 
people of that State, when the war came, 
which they endeavored but failed to avert, 
rallied to the defence of this Governpient. 
They sustained it in every emergency. We, 
the memhers upon this side of the House, had 
and yet have our brothers and our friends in 
the army doing battle for the Republic, al- 
though they do not agree with the peculiar 
African policies pursued by this Administra- 
tion. 

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. Abyssin- 
ian. [Laughter.] 

Mr. COX. I think that idle pleasantry of 
my friend over the way is nearly worn out. 
It was very stale when it was started here by 
him, and it does not become the gravity of 
this occasion, however much it may accord 
with his instincts. It proceeds rather from 
the brains which were located by a brother 
member in his knuckles, than from any other 
brains which he has. [Laughter.] 

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. Better 



tween these belligerent, these foreign nations? 
Before this war the parties were bound together by 
a compact, by a treaty called a 'Constitution.' They 
acknowledged the validity of municipal laws mu- 
tually binding on each. This war has cut asunder 
all these ligaments, abrogated all the obligations." 

" What then, is the effect of this public war 
between these belligerents, these foreign na- 
tions?" Foreign nations ! Foreign? Why? 
Because not under our Constitution, but alien 
from it by the maintenance of their indepen- 
dence by force of arms. Nations ? Having 
all the autonomy and independence of a bel- 
ligerent Power in Europe. Yet, for these 
sentiments, who had the courage to question, 
censure, or propose to expel the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania ? Ah I he i3 a Republican, 
and has a dispensation from the higher powers 
to recognize by his logic ( which my colleague 
unhappily followed^) the existence of the 
South as a separate nation. He is the leader 
of that side of the House, and may debate 
without question these momentous issues. 
My colleague [Mr. Long] followed him in his 
premises, although he drew another conclu- 
sion. The only difference was between a 
Democrat and an Abolitionist. 

Now, I ask my colleague [Mr. Garfield] 
whether he did not vote for a gentleman in 
Ohio for Lieutenant Governor who held the 
same doctrine of recognizing the Southern 
Confederacy ? I refer to Lieutenant Governor 
Stanton, who announced that doctrine on this 
floor. He never was expelled for it. No one 
then sought to abridge his free debate. I heard 
his remarks. I will send them up to be read 
before my colleague answers the question. 

Mr. GARFIELD. If the gentleman will allow 
me, they can as well be read afterwards. 

Mr. COX. Let them be read now. 

The Clerk read as follows : 

"Seven or eight States now deny their allegi- 
ance to this Government, have organized a separate 
confederacy, and have declared their independence 
of this Government. Whether that independence 
is to be maintained or not i^ with the future. If 
they shall maintain their position, and sustain the 
authorities there for a year or two to come, so as to 
show that nothing but a war of subjugation and 
conquest can bring them back, I, for one, am dis- 
posed to recognize that independenco." — Congres- 
sional Globe, February 23, 1S61, page 1,235. 

Mr. COX. I will now yield to my colleague 
to say whether he did not vote for that man 
as Lieutenant Governor of Ohio after it was 
known throughout the State that he thus fa- 
vored the independence of this confederacy. 

Mr. GARFIELD. I answer my colleague 
that I did not vote for that gentleman nor for 
any candidate on the ticket that fall, for the 
simple reason that I was in the army. If I 
bad been in Ohio I should have voted for that 
gentleman, and I do not excuse myself on any 
other ground than the simple lack of being 
present at the time of the election. 

Now, allow mc to say that th^re was a large 
class of men on both sides of the political 
questions of that day who in the beginning of 
this war felt a doubt whether it was no: better 



to let these people alone for a time, hoping 
that reason might return them by delay. 
There were others who said " wo cannot leave 
them alone;" and to that class belonged a 
number of distinguished gentlemen in the 
parties on both sides. That is one thing, 
but now, after that question has beeu adjudi- 
cated, after the great American people' has 
determined on war and determined on put- 
ting down the rebellion, after three years of 
war have passed, and when we are almost in 
the hour of daylight and victory, to arise now 
and throw up the contest i3 treason. 

Mr. COX. Mr. Speaker, I only asked the 
gentleman to answer my question, not to go 
off into a defiaition of what is treason in his 
judgment. I would rather take the constitu- 
tional definition of treason. I do not think 
my friend takes the Constitution as his author- 
ity, for he has said twice on this floor that he 
would overleap that Constitution. When you 
talk of treason, and in the same breath talk of 
overleaping the Constitution, you are the 
traitor, if there be such a traitor in this 
House. 

Mr. GARFIELD. Will the gentleman tell 
me what question it is that be desires I shall 
answer ? 

Mr. COX. I do not ask the gentleman any 
more questions. I am satisfied with bis po- 
sition. It is enough that I have shown that 
he is not the man to vote for the expulsion of 
any member for expressing sentiments in 
favor of the recognition of this Southern Con- 
federacy. It is not for him who would have 
voted for a man who was in favor, in advance 
of war, of the recognition of the Southern 
Confederacy — and who thus encouraged the 
rebels to proceed in their rebellion when it 
was in its bud — to reflect upon gentlemen on 
this side of the House who have voted against 
secession, against recognition, and in favor of 
sustaining the war for the Union upon the 
proper policy. It is not for him to censure or 
expel my colleague, when he has declared 
that be himself would in some cases overleap 
the Constitution. 

Mr. GARFIELD. I only desire to say that 
my colleague misrepresents me, I presume 
unintentionally, when he says that I have on 
two distinct occasions declared my readiness to 
overleap the Constitution. That I may set 
myself and him right on that question, i will 
say, once for all, that I have never uttered 
such a sentiment. What I have uttered is 
this : when asked if I would, under any cir- 
cumstances, override the Constitution, 1 said 
this, and this only — premising, as I believed, 
that the Constitution was ample enough of 
itself to put down this rebellion, that its 
powers were most capacious, and there was 
no need to override it — that if sweh a time 
ever should come that the powers of the Con- 
stitution were not sufficient to sustain the 
Union, if that impossible supposition 
ever prove true, [laughter from the Demo- 
cratic side of the House,] then I would say 
that we have a right to do our solemn duty 



under God and go beyond the Constitution to 
save the creators of the Constitution. 

Mr. COX. I am informed by the members 
around me, and I think that the report of my 
colleague's remarks will show it in the Globe, 
that he put no condition like that he makes 
now. I ask gentlemen on both sides whether 
my colleague ever qualified his remarks by 
Baying that it would bo forever impossible in 
tha future for the Constitution to be infringed 
by making war. Why make the statement of 
overleaping the Constitution if it be forever 
impossible to do it in carrying on this war? 

Mr. GARFIELD. Will the gentleman 
allow me ? 

Mr. COX. Certainly. 

Mr. GARFIELD. I said so in answer to 
the question of my colleague now upon the 
floor. I said so, secondly, in answer to the 
gentleman from Illinois, and put the same 
question to him. I explained it in the same 
way. The gentleman is at liberty to look at 
the manuscript, which I have not yet seen, 
and may quote from it. 

Mr. COX. I have only the Chronicle's re- 
port of the debate of yesterday. Perhaps it 
is good authority for the members on the 
other side. I will quote from its report : 

"Mr. Garfield then controverted his col- 
league's position. The issue was now made up. 
We should use the common weapons of war. If 
with these we should not succeed, ho would tako 
means, as he would against the savage who 
attacked himself or family. He would resort to 
any element of destruction, and, if necessary, he 
would rling all constitutional sanctions to the winds 
ra'her than lose his country." 

Is there anything about "impossible" con- 
ditions there ? 

Mr. GARFIELD. "If necessary;" there 
is the condition. 

Mr. COX. There is nothing about the im- 
possibility of the Constitution proving insuffi- 
cient to put down the rebellion, and in which 
case alone he would overleap it. Overleap an 
impossibility I I would like to see the per- 
formance. 

Another question. I remember that my 
colleague, en the confiscatioa bill, said that 
he would under certain circumstances over- 
leap tke Constitution. What did he mean 
then by that r In that debate his language 
was precisely this : 

" I would not break the Constitution at all, un- 
less it should become necessary to overleap its bar- 
riers to save the Government and the Union." 

Nothing about the impossibility of ever 
breaking the Constitution, not a word or 
syllaMe, for he contemplates its breach for 
cert; in purposes. My colleague cannot escape 
from thj dilemma in which he is placed. And 
yet he undertakes to make political capital 
out of the speech of my colleague from the 
second district after such declarations I If 
he does not gentlemen on that side of the 
House i'o. They are, I learn, subscribing for 
that speem by hundreds and thousands to 
distribute it fcr partisan purposes ; and yet 



they have advocated the very heresies upon 
which th*y ground the present accusation, 
and give them circulation by sending out the 
speech of my colleague. I want it understood 
that the Republican members who have favored 
recognition, and favored the men who favored 
it, are now striving to expel a member for the 
same license of speech which they have in- 
dulged ; that at home they have favored for t 
high offices a public character who took ground 
in favor of rocognizing the rebellion if it 
should maintain itself " for a year or two." 
I might well ask my colleague, in view of his 
position, whether he did not know that those 
were the sentiments of Governor Stanton when 
he would have voted for him if he had been 
at home 1 To come to the question ; was he 
not thus committed to the policy of dissolving 
the Union if the rebellion could sustain itself 
for a year or two f Then I ask him, how much 
better is he than the member whom he seeks to 
expel ? Wherein does he differ from that mem- 
ber upon this subject of recognizing lawless- 
ness ? More than that ; the gentleman's party 
in Ohio favored Benjamin Stanton for Lieu- 
tenant Governor, knowing his sentiments to 
be similar to those attributed to my colleague. 
More than that ; they elected a man Senator 
from Ohio who had uttered the same senti- 
ments as the sentiments of that party. He 
is the personal and political friend of my col- 
league. I mean Senator Wade. I will send 
his remarks to the Clerk's desk to be read, 
that we may know who are in favor of disso- 
lution and recognitiou. 

The Clerk read as follows, from the Con- 
gressional Globe of the third session of the 
Thirty- Fourth Congress, page 25 : 

"Cut Southern gentlemen stand here, and, in 
almost all their speeches, speak of the dissolution 
of the Union as an element of every argument, as 
though it were a peculiar condescension on their part 
that they permitted the Union to stand at ail. If 
they do not feel interested in upholding this Union, 
if it really trenches on their rights, if it endangers 
their institutions to suoh an extent that they can- 
not feel securo under it, if their interests are vio- 
lently assailed by means of this Union, I am not 
one of those who expect that they will long con- 
tinue under it. / ant not one of those who would 
ask them to continue in such a Union. It would 
be doing violence to the platform, of the party to 
which I belong. AVo have adopted the old Decla- 
ration of Independence as tho basis of oar political 
movement, which declares that any people, when 
their Government ceases to protect their rights, 
when it is so subverted from tho truo purposes of 
government as to oppress them, have tho right to 
reeur to fundamental principles, and if need be, to 
destroy the Government under which they lire, and 
to erect on its ruins another more conducive to their 
welfare. I hold that they have this right. I will 
not blame any people fn* exercising it, whenever 
they think the continn .>cy has come. * * * 
I say again th . eiiey havo the same interest in- 
maintaining cuis Union, in my judgment, that we 
of i le North have. If they they think they havo 
not, be it so. Yon cannot forcibly hold men in 
tins Union j for the attempt to do so, it seems to 
me, would subvert the first prinofpleB of the Gov- 
ernment under which we live." 



t) 



Mr. COX. Now, there is the broadest 
doctrine laid down in favor of the right of 
rev )lution and against the right of coercion. 
"It would be doing violence to the platform 
of the p:;rty to which I belong," says the 
Repub.ican leader of Ohio, "to ask the South 
to continue in such a Union." "You cannot 
forcibly hold men in this Union — it would 
subvert the first principles of the Govern- 
ment." Ah I you re-elected him Senator 
after those avowals, and now would you 
expel men for the same avowals ? If they are 
treason in a Representative what are they in 
a Senai or ? 

I ark my colleague if he did not sustain 
that Senator ? Did he not vote for him for 
Senpfor, or would he not have voted for 
him? 

Mr. GARFIELD. I had not the pleasure of 
voting for the distinguished Senator from 
northern Ohio, but it would have given me 
great pleasure, and had I bad that privilege I 
should have enjoyed it and acted upon it. 

Mr. COX. Does the gentleman approve of 
Senator Wade's doctrine? 

Mr. GARbTED. Will the gentleman allow 
me a moment ? 

Mr. COX. With great pleasure. 

Mr. GARFIELD. I wish to send to the 
desk to be read 

[Cries of "No !" "No!"] 

Mr. COX. If it does not come out of my 
time I will not object. [Cries of "Well!" 
"Well!" and "No!" "No!"] 

Mr. GARFIELD. I recall the paper. 

Mr. COX. Will the gentleman indicate 
what it is ? 

Mr. GARFIELD. I will only say in refer- 
ence to this colloquy that if I cannot make 
my part of the colloquy as I choose, I will 
make it when the gentleman has concluded 
his remarks. 

Mr. COX. The gentleman can have the 
paper read if he pleases. I shrink from no 
responsibility in this debate. 

Mr. GARFIELD. I desire to have read an 
authority which the gentleman himself I 
think acknowledges. It is upon the same 
point that has just been in debate between 
us, and when it is read I have only a word 
to say. 

Mr. COX. Who is the authority ? 

Mr. GARFIELD. Thomas Jefferson. 

The Clerk read as follows : 

Mr. Jefferson, in a letter to J. B. Colvin, 
September 20, 1810, says : 

" Tbo question you propose, whether circum- 
stances do not sometimes occur which make it a 
duty in officers of high trust to assume authorities 
beyond the law, is easy of solution in principle, hut 
sometimes embarrassing in practice. A strict ob- 
servance of the written laws is doubtless one of the 
highest duties of a good citizen, but it is not the 
h iglu it.. The laws of necessity, of self-preservation, 
of saving our country when in danger, are ol higher 
obligation. To lose our country by a scrupulous 
adherence to written law would be to lose the law 
itseit, with life, liberty, property, and all those who 



are enjoying them with us ; thus absolutely sacri- 
ficing the end to the means. — Jefferson's Works, 
vol. 5, p. 512. 

Mr. GARFIELD. I have only to state that 
that paper states, more ably and more elo- 
quently than I can, the very doctrine which I 
have uttered, and for which the gentleman 
condemns me. 

Mr. COX. Now, I do not know as to the 
authenticity of that quotation presented by 
the gentleman, but if the gentleman quotes it 
for the purpose of vindicating the lawlessness 
against the United States authorities which 
has been rampant in that part of Ohio where 
he lives, just as it was prevalent in South 
Carolina, I doubt if Jefferson would have sanc- 
tioned such a pernicious and disorganizing 
practice. I know the gentleman and his party 
are in favor of a higher law than the Consti- 
tution, or the laws made in pursuance there- 
of, when, in their opinion, those laws impinge 
upon their consciences. But I deny ail such 
seditious and anarchical doctrine. Notwith- 
standing every authority, whether it be from 
Jefferson, Wade, or my colleague, I deny ut- 
terly the right of any one, secessionists or 
abolitionists, to infract or nullify any law of 
the United States or any clause of its Consti- 
tution, for any purpose. I am in favor of the 
enforcement of the laws everywhere equally 
upon every citizen of the United States. But 
my colleague takes the other ground, and 
quotes Jefferson to sustain it. But with such 
a lawless programme how can he vote for the 
expulsion of my friend from Ohio because, as 
it is alleged, he maintained the same princi- 
ple? How can a defender of law-breakers ex- 
pel another for recognizing the breach of the 
very fundamental law of the Union? 

But I asked my colleague a question to 
which he did not respond. It was whether 
he was in favor of the sentiments of Senator 
Wade in reference to the right of revolution 
and against coercion. He said he would have 
voted for him. Where does that place my 
colleague ? In the category of my friend from 
Cincinnati, according to the allegation. How, 
then, can my colleague vote for the expulsion 
of a man who agrees with him and with his 
Senator ; and who agrees with another and 
the principal light of the Republican party? 
Horace Greeley in his paper states what I 
will send to the Clerk to be read for the in- 
formation of the gentleman. 

The Clerk read the following from the New 
York Tribune of the 2d of March, 1861 : 

"We ha^e repeatedly said, and we once more in- 
sist, that the great principle embodied by Jefferson 
in the Declaration of Independence, that govern- 
ments derive their just powers from the consent of 
tho governed, is sound and just; and that, if the 
slave States, the cotton States, or tho Gulf States 
only, choose to form an independent nation, they 
have a moral right to do so !" 

Mr. COX. Now, I ask my colleague whether 
he favors that doctrine of Horace Greeley? 
He has been hitherto very prompt to answer. 
I have given him every chance. He has no 



excuse now, and I beg my friend of the Abys- 
sinian joke [laughter] not to interrupt him. 
I ask my friend if he agrees with Air. Greely 
in the doctrine which he laid down ? 

Mr. GARFIELD. I will say to the gentle- 
man that I did not attend to the reading. 

Mr. COX. My colleague is generally very 
sharp in hearing everything that falls from 
this side of the House. 

Mr. GARFIELD. I hope my friend will not 
intimate in any way whatever that I am not 
perfectly willing to answer every question he 
sees fit to propound to me. 

Mr. COX. I will have it read again for the 
benefit of my colleague, for I have respect for 
the opinion of my colleague. 

The article was again read. 

Mr. COX. I ask my colleague whether he 
believes in that " moral right of the Gulf or 
cotton States to make an independent nation." 

Mr. GARFIELD. I am perfectly willing to 
nnswe r the gentleman, if he will proceed with 
his own remarks, and I can then get the floor. 
I would prefer to answer him categorically 
theD. 

Mr. COX. I will give the gentleman a 
chance to answer as I go along. It is so much 
more interesting. I like that dramatic and 
vivacious form of debate. My colleague is so 
apt 11 nd ready in debate. 

Mr. G ARFIELD. I prefer to wait until the 
gentleman is through. 

Sir- COX. I am afraid people will draw a 
wrong conclusion Irom my colleague's refusal 
to answer. He may not get a chance to answer 
to-day. But as he seems unwilling, I ask the 
privilege of printing a few more extracts from 
the great editorial light of his party, Mr. 
Greeley, in reference to letting the Southern 
States go. Nobody ever attempted to expel 
him out of the Republican party for such sen- 
timents : 

"If the cotton States shall become satisfied that 
they can do better out of the Union than in it, we 
insist on the letting tbem go in peace. Tho right 
to sccedo may be a revolutionary one, but it exists 
nevertheless. * Wo must ever re- 

sist the right of any State to remain in the Union 
and nullity or defy tho laws thereof. To withdraw 
from the Union is quite another matter ; whenever 
a considerable section of our Union shall deliber- 
ately resolve to go out, wo shall resist all coercive 
measures designed to keep it in. We hope never 
to live in a republic whereof one section is pinned 
to another by bayonets." — Tribune of November 9, 
1860. 

" If the cotton States unitedly and earnestly wish 
to withdraw peacefully from the Union, we think 
they should and would be allowed to do so. Any 
attempt to compel them by force to remain would 
be contrary to the principles enunciated in the im- 
mortal Declaration of Independence — contrary to 
the fundamental ideas on which human liberty is 
based " — Tribune, November 26, 1S60. 

'• If it (the Declaration of Independence) justified 
the secession from the Uritish Empire of three mil- 
lion colonist* in 1776, we do not seo why it would 
not justify (he secession of five million southrons 
from the Union in 1861 --Tribune, December 17, 
1860. 



" Whenever it shall be clear that the great body 
of the Southern people line beoone c 
alienated from tho Union, and anxious to 
from it, we will do our best '" forward their 
— Tribune, February 23, 1861. 

Can it be possible that such opinions have 
been uttered and tho paper not suppn 
Can it be that members who read it approv- 
ingly, day by day, seek to txpel a metnb t of 
this House for copying its worst features ? 
Why was not the Constitution " overlesp->d" 
to suppress that journal and exile its editor ? 
Gentlemen opposite take this journal and 
swear by it as the gospel of emancipation and 
the exponent of Republican policy. They 
cannot get along without it. Why, than, 
are they so sensitive when it is alleged that 
a Democrat is going in the direction pointed 
out by their own shining beacon? 

Mr. Speaker, I need not ask my colleague 
whether he voted for Abraham Lincoln for 
President. I know that he did. I do not 
know whether he favors Mr. Lincoln or Gen- 
eral Fremont for the next Presidency, but I 
know that so far as the past is concerned he 
is committed to Mr. Lincoln and to his record 
and sentiments. I proprose to have read, for 
the information of my colleague, an extract 
from a speech made by Mr. Lincoln, of Illi- 
nois, on the 14th of February, 1848, and 
printed by Gideon & Co., especially for circu- 
lation among such gentlemen as my colleague. 
Here is the extract, and to it I solicit his 
attention. I ask him if he approves of the 
doctrine ? If he dees, he cannot consistently 
vote for the expulsion of my colleague. The 
Clerk will read from the original and genuine 
document. 

The Clerk read as follows, from the pam- 
phlet : 

"Any people, anywhere, being inclined and hav- 
ing the power, have a right to rise up and shake 
off the existing Government and form a ncio o»iethat 
suits them better." 

Mr. COX. I may be allowed, before the 
Clerk reads any further, to call the attention 
of the distinguished Speaker to that extract. 
He voted for Mr. Lincoln. Nobody knows 
whether he is for him or not now. [Laugh- 
ter.] I want to ask him whether he approves 
of the doctrine- 

The Clerk read, as follows : 

" This is a most valuable, a most sacred right, a 
right which we hope and believe is to liberate tho 
world. Nor is this right confined to cases in which 
the whole people of an existing government may 
choose to exercise it. Any portioM of such people 
that can, may revolutionize and may make their 
own so much of the territory at the;/ inhabit. More 
than this, a tuajftrity of any portion of such people 
may revolutionize, putting down a minority inter- 
mingled with or near about them who may oppose 
their movements." — January 10, 184S. 

Mr. COX. I get no response from the 
Speaker. He must approve of the revolu- 
tionary sentiments of the President aad be 
disgusted with his own resolution of expul- 
sion. Perhaps he will move to lay his reso- 



8 



lution upon the table, or else vote to impeach. 
Mr. Lincoln. 

Mr. COLFAX. Will the gentleman from 
Ohio yield to me ? 

Mr. COX. With the greatest pleasure. 

Mr. COLFAX. In reply to the remarks 
of the gentleman from Ohio, I have to re- 
peat that the gentleman from Indiana upon 
this side of the Heuse does not speak in the 
midst of another gentleman's speech by his 
courtesy, liable to be stopped by him as the 
gentleman stopped his colleague recently. 
He speaks when he obtains the floor, and has 
no secret about his opinions in regard to any 
subject. 

Mr. COX. Oh! Mr. Speaker, when the 
leading man of this House comes down from 
his high position to offer a resolution to ex- 
pel a member who comes here by the same 
right that he does, he cannot escape on ac- 
count of his peculiar dignity. When he de- 
scends to this floor, the common platform of 
us all, and condescends to mingle with us in 
debate, he cannot and shall not escape. 1^ 
he or is he not in favor of the doctrine laid 
down by the President in the extracts which 
have been read? That is a very simple ques- 
tion. You will lose no dignity, sir, by an- 
swering it now. [Laughter.] We will look 
upon you with pride and pleasure as the 
Speaker of this House if you will conde- 
scend to delight us by evincing your opinion 
upon that subject. I pledge myself that you 
shall not be interrupted. 

Mr. COLFAX. In reply only to the per- 
sonal remarks of the gentleman from Ohio, I 
say this to him; that when I appear upon this 
floor I do not condescend from that chair. The 
position of a member upon this floor is as ex- 
alted aDd responsible as the position of him 
who sits in that chair to administer your 
rules. The gentleman brings a reproach 
upon himself and upon his fellow- members 
upon this floor when he snears at me and 
speaks of me, when I appear upon this floor 
as the representative of my constituents, per- 
forming my duty, as condescending. The 
highest position a man can hold in this House 
is that of a representative of one hundred 
and fifty thousand people, sent here by their 
willing votes, and not by a mere majority of 
votes elected here as the Presiding Officer of 
this body. 

Mr. COX. Mr. Speaker, I did not make 
any personal remarks in regard to my dis- 
tinguished friend. Far be it from me to 
throw any stain upon him for his condescen- 
sion. I admire him too much for his fairness 
and justice in presiding over our delibera- 
tions to reproach him. Never has he heard 
a word of that kind from me. But when he 
comes down from his exaltation to this floor 
and undertakes to engineer a resolution 
through this House for the expulsion of a 
brother member, he must take the conse- 
qnences of the debate which he inaugurates. 

Mr. COLFAX. I am willing to do so, per- 
fectly willing. 



Mr. COX. My friend does not seem now 
to be willing to do it. He shall not be inter- 
rupted if he answer whether he stands by 
Mr. Lincoln or not in these traitorous senti- 
ments which I read from his speech. I am 
opposed to all such sentiments, opposed to 
secession, opposed to revolution, and opposed 
to any change of our Government, except in 
pursuance of the Constitution by the amend- 
ment thereof. That is the position of the 
members on this side. But Mr. Lincoln was 
elevated to the Presidency by that lawless 
party on the other side, knowing his senti- 
ments to be in favor of secession and revolu- 
tion, in favor of "any portion of the people 
that can, revolutionizing and making their 
own so much of the territory as they inhabit." 
I ask gentlemen, if my colleague deserves 
expulsion, does not the President deserve 
impeachment r 

But if gentlemen say these questions are 
gone by, then I come to the condition of 
things since the war and press the question 
which was not answered, why did you not 
expel Mr. Conway last Congress ? I received 
no reply. I now ask, why not expel the 
gentleman from Indiana, [Mr. Julian,] the 
colleague of the Speaker, for his speech on 
the homestead law, wherein he expressed 
sentiments which, if carried out, would bring 
about in the North the very convulsion and 
anarchy which we now unhappily have in 
the South. 

The gentleman from Indiana, [Mr. Julian,] 
on the 18th of March, 1864, held these senti- 
ments : 

" Congress must repeal the joint resolution of last 
year, which protects the fee of rebel landholders. 
The President, as I am well advised, now stands 
ready to join us in such action. Should we fail to 
do this, the courts must so interpret the joint reso- 
lution as to make its repeal needless. Should both 
Congress and the courts stand in the way of the 
nation's life, then 'the red lightning of the people's 
wrath' must consume the recreant men who refusa 
to execute the popular will. Our country, united 
and free, must be saved, at whatever hazard or 
cost; and nothing, not even the Constitution, must 
be allowed to hold back the uplifted arm of the 
Government in blasting the 2)owcr of the rebels for- 
ever." 

Now, Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the 
House, in our simplicity, were taught last 
session of Congress by a patriotic and learned 
member of the opposite party from Massa- 
chusetts, ("Judge Thomas, ) that there could 
be no Union without the Constitution ; that 
there could be no war carried on except iu 
pursuance of the Constitution ; that in using 
the appliances for subduing the rebellion we 
are acting within the pale of the Constitution ; 
that we seek domestic tranquility alone by the 
sword the Constitution has placed in our 
hands ; t v at in the path of war, as of peace, 
the Constitution is our guide and our light, 
the cloud by day, the pillar of fire by night ; 
that in preserving the Union and the Consti- 
tution we vindicate in every part the indivisi- 
ble Republic in its supreme law ; that in seek- 



ing to change the Constitution, to break or 
overleap it, wa become the rebels we are 
striving to subdue ; that all our labors and 
sacrifices for the Union of our fathers are for 
the Constitution, which is its only bond ; that 
to make this a war, with the sword In the 
one ha*.d to defend the Constitution, and a 
hammer in the other hand to break it to 
pieces, is no less treasonable than secession 
itself ; and that outside of the pale of the 
Constitution the whole struggle i« revolution. 

If theso sentiments be true, sir — and no one 
will question them — why was not tho gentle- 
man from Indiana [Mr. Julian] expelled lor the 
treasonable sentiments I have quoted! Why 
was not a similar resolution to this moved in 
relation to him ? We on this side do not do 
it. Wo are in favor of tho largest liberty of 
debate by the papular Representatives. We 
understand that the Constitution guarantees 
such debate We did not disturb your Judge 
Conway last session for his resolutions. We 
did not vote for his resolutions ; but you are 
»esponsible for his continuance in his position 
till the end of the last Congress. 

If it were a reproach to the country, as our 
distinguished Speaker has stated, that a man 
should express himself here in favor of the re- 
tognition of the Southern Confederacy ; if it 
dishonors and weakens us abroad and impairs 
ear energies and discourages our efforts at 
nome ; if it were equivalent to allowing mem- 
bers of the Richmond Congress to eome here 
and take part in our deliberations, (as the 
Speaker has alleged, ) why was not the expul- 
sion of the member from Kansas proposed by 
him ? Ah ! his case was of a different hue 
then. It was of a darker shade then. Now 
you are in favor of expelling a man from our 
midst who was sent here by the- people, be- 
cause he utters the same sentiments which 
this oide repudiates, and which one of your 
own Bide uttered last session, and which you 
never sought to repudiate by the grave pro- 
cess of expulsion. 

But the Speaker did not resume his seat 
until he had made a fling at the Democracy of 
my State for supporting Mr. Vallundigham. 
Mr. Speaker, I took some part in the last con- 
test for the Governorship of Ohio. I did not 
fully agree with the gentleman who is now in 
exile, as members know, in his votes on this 
floor, nor in regard to his peculiar views of 
policy or peace. I upheld sadly but flrczfy 
the sword, after it had been unsheathed, lest 
a worse alternative should ensue — the dis- 
union of our beloved country. 

Mr. JULIAN. Will the gentleman yield to 
me for a moment ? 

Mr. COX. Certainly. 

Mr. JULIAN. The gentleman from Ohio 
read only a portion of a paragraph from the 
speech which I delivered in this Honse) and 1 
wish ho would allow me to have rend at the 
desk the entire paragraph which I have 
marked. 

Mr. COX. If the members on the other 
side of the House will agree to extend my 



time I will yield for that purpose. I will in- 
sert it in my speech when it comes to be 
printed I cannot yield now, as I have very 
little time left. 

Mr. JULIAN. It is only a brief paragraph. 

Mr. COX. As I have said, I will yield if 
my time is extended. 

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. I object to 
the extension of tho gentleman's time. 

Mr. COX. I will insert in my speech what 
the gentleman desires, but as the extension 
of my time is objected to, I cannot yield to 
him. The gentleman does not devy that I 
have quoted him fairly so far as I have gone. 
Did not the gentleman say that he was in 
favor of breaking down the Constitution te 
save tho country ? 

Mr. JULIAN. It is a perversion of what 
I did say. 

Mr. COX. I would rather hava it from 
your own lips than from any report. Are 
you iu favor of breaking down the Constitu- 
tion? 

Mr. JULIAN. I will answer ths gentleman 
from Ohio. I said explicitly in the paragraph 
of my speech which I have asked the gentle- 
man to allow to be read, that there was no 
necessity in the world for breaking down the 
Constitution in any of its parts to put down 
the present rebellion in tho South. That is 
my position. I said the Constitution was 
made for the people, not the people for the 
Constitution ; and that our fathers were not 
fools but wiso men, who armed the nation 
with the power to crush its foes as well as to 
protect its friends. 

Mr. COX. If that necessity existed? 

Mr. JULIAN. If it were necessary to save 
the. life of the nation to depart from the let- 
ter of the Constitution I would, as I said in 
my speech, blast the power of the rebellion 
forever by the strong hand of war. 

Mr. COX. I, too, would blast the power 
of the rebels by the strong hand of war; but 
I regard the life of tho nation as bound up 
with the Constitution, and that to blast the 
Constitution you blast the Government. 
And by destroying the Constitution you do 
not put an end to this war nor suppress the 
rebellion. 

Mr. JULIAN. Let me ask the gentleman 
a question. 

Mr. COX. Certainly. 

Mr. JULIAN. I ask the gentleman 
whether, if the salvation of the nation's life 
required the violation of the letter of the 
Constitution, the gentleman would be willing 
to save the life of the nation at that cost? 

Mr. COX. I regard it as utterly impossible, 
under God, ever to save the life of the nation 
by tearing out its vitals — its heart and brain. 
Tijc Constitution is the frame in whioh the 
9 'V. rament is enshrined. I know t o other 
Government except that embodied intl 
stitution. This 1* the" Government whii 

ort ; not sworn I 
fir, in n certain emergency ; not sworn 
stroy, if necessary to save the life of 



10 



the country, but unconditionally to support 
at ail times and in all places, as if that hie 
were bound up with it forever. You have 
taken upon your soul the oath to sustain that 
Constitution. Now you say on certain condi- 
tionn ycu would break your oath t What is 
moral treason ? What is moral perjury ? I 
do Lot charge these upon the gentleman ; but 
I beg him to reconsider and call back his 
words. 

Mr. JULIAN. Will the gentleman yield to 
cue right here ? 

- Mi. COX. I will, if the gentleman thinks 
f have done him injustice. 

Mr. JULIAN. I have taken that oath, and 
I have asserted publicly that there is no ne- 
cessity in the world for violating it. But the 
gentleman has not answered the interrogatory 
which I propounded to him. I wish him to 
state explicitly whether, if the life of the na- 
tion could only be saved by a violation of the 
Constitution, he would be willing to save it 
in that way. [Laughter on the Republican 
side of the House.] 

Mr. COX. I will answer the question. I 
am used to laughter from that side of the 
House. It does not distract me, for laughter 
is not logic. 

What is the life of the nation, sir, of which 
we hear so much? I know no other life of 
the nation except that incarnate in the writ- 
ten Constitution, which protects property, 
person, home, conscience, liberty, and life. 
Take away these, and there is no nation. 
{Society is stagoant and dead. The gentle- 
man regards liberty as the life of the nation — 
a sort of ill- defined liberty for black and white, 
I suppose. I regard the Constitution as the 
embodiment of constitutional freedom in this 
country, the very body, life, and soul of the 
Union. That is the Constitution of the United 
States. When you strike that down you 
i-trike down the life of the nation. Therefore 
we, on this side, have determined, in order to 
save the lite of the Government, to save the 
Constitution from destruction. 

Mr. JULIAN. Will the gentleman allow 
me to ask him another question ? 

Mr. COX. If the gentleman is not fully an- 
swered I will say this, that dnder no circum 

STANCES CONCEIVABLE BY THE HUMAN WIND WOULD 
I EVEE VIOLAE THAT CONSTITUTION FOE ANY 

purpose. [Cries of "That's it!" "That's 
itl" Lorn the Democratic side of the House.] 
As Judge Thomas has said, " I would cling to 
it as the bond of unity in the past, as the 
only practical bond of union in the future ; 
the only land lilted above the waters, on 
which the ark of the Union can be moored. 
From that aik alone will go out the dove, 
blessed of the Spirit, which shall return 
bringing in its mouth the olive-branch of 
peace." To compass its destruction as a 
probable or possible necessity, is the very 
"gospel of anarchy, the philosophy of dis- 
solution." 

Mr. JULIAN. I want to ask the gentleman 
a question. 



Several Members on the Democratic side 
objected. 

Mr. COX. If there be any man in this 
Chamber who holds or utters any other senti- 
ment in reference to the Constitution and his 
oath than this which I have expressed, I say 
to him that language has no term of reproach, 
and the mind no idea of detestation, adequate 
to express the moral leprosy and treason 
couched in his language and clinging to his 
soul. I will not designate such utterance by 
any harsher language in a parliamentary 
body. 

When interrupted by the member frcm In- 
diana I was about to go a little further in 
answer to what the Speaker said in reference 
to the Democracy of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I 
took a part in the campaign of last year, as I 
said, not because I approved of the peculiar 
peace notions of my former colleague. It 
was well known in Ohio that my votes here 
did not always coincide with his, and that my 
sentiments did not agree with his altogether ; 
but when by an arbitrary arrest, without war- 
rant, without a fair trial, in defiance of the 
Constitution, in defiance of a law passed by 
ourselves, in defiance of English and Ameri- 
can traditions, petitions and bills of right, he 
was arrested and exiled, the Democracy of 
Ohio raised an issue in favor of fair trial, free 
speech, the immunities of personal freedom, 
and an honest and lawful administration of 
public affairs. That was our only issue. I 
took ground everywhere in favor of the lib- 
erty of the citizen and the integrity of the 
Constitution. Disagreeing always with the 
peculiar tenets held by him in relation to co- 
ercion, I held that he had the same right to 
speak for peace as the soldier to fight for it. 
But I will say this for him, that nowhere, 
here or at home did he ever utter a sentiment 
or do an act looking to the recognition of the 
Southern Confederacy. He said in his place 
in this House, again and again, and quoted 
Mr. Calhoun's opinions on the Mexican war 
in his justification, that he would not oppose 
the voting of men and money to carry on this 
war, the responsibility for which he did not 
covet nor bear. But, sir, he never would 
consent to a peace based upon recognition. 
He so said in the North, and he said the same 
in his exile in the South. 

We were defeated in Ohio on account of 
the issue made on the peace sentiment. I 
bowed to that decision. But, sir, while there 
are some in our party opposed to coercion and 
in favor of a peace indiscriminately, without 
regard to consequences, the great body of 
the Democratic people in our State and in 
the North have never gone beyond one con- 
clusion; and that is, they are forever opposed 
to curtailing the limits of our empire by the 
recognition of a new nation carved out of our 
territory and made up of our States and 
people. Come war, come peace, come any- 
thing, we would bring about a restoration of 
the old Government, with the old order. Our 
determination is to follow the line of duty 



11 



laid down by the distinguished Governor of 
New York, Horatio Seymour, to superadd to 
force the policy of conciliation; not to with- 
draw our forces from the field and yield to 
the South independence, but to superadd one 
other element of Union — kindness and Chris- 
tianity. If gentlemen cannot understand 
how two such ideas are compatible in the 
same mind with each other and with patriot- 
ism, I cannot teach them. While we have 
been ever ready to sustain our gallant sol- 
diers in the field by our money and our raeo, 
we have been also ready at every hour of our 
triumph and at every opportunity for com- 
promise to extend an honorable amnesty to 
the erring; not the jugglery of the executive 
amnesty, based upon a proclamation of aboli- 
tion which is a lie, but an amnasty which 
shall bring hack the great body of the people 
South — if it be yet possible — to their old al- 
legiance. We desire to make onr victories 
consequential by the rehabilitation of the 
States as they were, and to make out of 
them and not out of illegitimate States — the 
offspring of a corrupt Executive — the old 
Union, one and indivisible ! 

This is the policy of the northern Democ- 
racy. Upon that platform we intend to con- 
tend in the November election. Whoever 
may be our candidate, that, will be our doc- 
trine, and you cannot fas the gentleman from 
Illinois [Mr. Washbukne] tried to do yester- 
day,^ give it a different interpretation, be- 
cause of the speech of my colleague, [Mr. 
Long,] or because of the partisan attempt to 
expel him for the sentiments he has uttered. 

We accept as our platform the integrity of 
the Union. Upon that platform we will never, 
in any emergeney of this Republic, yield up 



this country and its Constitution to secession, 
and to its baleful counterpart, abolition. 
"Amid all the darkness, the thick darkness 
around us, we will cling to the single, simple, 
sublime issue — the Constitution, and tho 
Union of which it is the bond ; the old Union. 
God bless the old Union, and the wrath of 
the Lamb of God shrivel to their very sock- 
ets the arms lifted to destroy it ; not in ven- 
geance, but in mercy to them and to all man- 
kind." 

Mr. DAWSON. I wish to say, right here, 
that the gentleman from Ohio was candid 
enough to declare in the speech referred to 
that he spoke for himself, and himself alone, 
and not for the Democratic party. That ought 
to be a sufficient reply to my colleague, and I 
trust that it is satisfactory. 

While I am up I have one further romark 
to make. The gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Gar- 
field] yesterday, in speaking of tlie order 
known as the " Knights of the Golden Circle," 
declared that "it was under the protection 
and fraternity o f the Democratic party. " Now, 
there may be such n society as tho " Knights 
of the Golden Circle." For myself, as a Dem- 
ocrat, I declare I have no knowledge of any 
such order. 

Mr. COX. Nor has anybody else on this 
side of the House. 

Mr. DAWSON. In ray intercourse with 
the Democratic party 4n Pennsylvania and 
everywhere else, and jj in my intercourse with 
Democratic members in this House, I have 
scarcely ever heard any reference made to that 
order. I know nothing of its being under the 
care and protection of the Democratic party, 
and I repudiate the charge in the roundest 
terms. 



3.0SPECTUS FOR THE NEW YEAR. 



THE CONSTITUTIONAL UNION, 

A Daily and Weekly Democratic Conservative Union Newspaper. 

The Bold and Fearless Defender of Constitutional Liberty I 

Devoted earnestly to the maintenance of the Constitution as it is, and the restoration of 

the Union as it was. 

The " Constitutional Union" has won, since its establishment, the heartiest approval 
of all national and conservative men, for its able and fearless advocacy of Constitutional 
Liberty, Constitutional Eights, and Constitutional Principles. As the Publisher desires 
to enlarge the field of its operations by an increase in its subscription list and a more 
extended circulation, he is encouraged in the belief that it may be made a means of vast 
and greater usefulness in the important work of the Preservation of the Union, which, 
in His inscrutable wisdom, Providence has committed to the National Conservative De- 
mocracy ; and in which, if our free form of Constitutional Government is to be preserved, 
there mustbe neither hesitation, timidity, or delay. The " Constitutional Union" will 
continue to exercise, as fearlessly as it has heretofore done, its constitutional right of the 
Freedom of the Press, while it w'ill earnestly contend r or the entire Freedom of Speech, 
and a free and untrammeled ballot for the people, uaa^ed and undismayejj! by the in- 
vention of bands of armed men at the polls, so as to secure a constitutional victory through 
the ballot-box, a restoration of law and order in the administration of the Government, 
and the election in the autumn of 18G4 of a President of the United States who will 
faithfully and constitutionally administer the duties of his great office. 

THE D <ULY CONSTITUTIONAL UNION is sent to subscribers, by mail, at $8 a year. 
Clubs, for" the daily, of twenty five persons, mailed to one address, $150 per year. 

THE WEEKLY CONSTITUTIONAL UNION, for single copies, is furnished by mail a 
the low rate of $2 a year, and at less prices for Clubs. 



THE WEEKLY CO]\ J^TITUTIONAL UNION. 

Especial attention is solicited to our weeldy paper, which is a mammoth sheet, filled 
with choice matter, and exceedingly desirable, in our judgment, as a periodical visitor at 
the hearthstone and in the family of every conservative man in the Union. It may be had, 
considering the enormous price of paper and increased cost of labor and materials, at a 
v*ry cheap rate, as the scale of prices will show. We suggest the union of effort among 
friends to form Clubs, by which a large reduction in the price of the paper is attained. 

OUR TERMS FOR CLUBS I 

Single Copies, one year ^ 00 

Two Copies, one year • ■•• ■• • ■ •■- ■•••• .„ 

Ten Copios, to one address, with an extra Copy to the person sending the Club. ... 17 50 
Twenty Copies, to one address, with an extra Copy to the person sending the Club. . 30 00 

Additional names can be added to the Clubs, at any time, at the usual Club rates. 

j©_ SPECIMEN COPIES will be sent to the address of any one who may des ; re them. 

AS. subscriptions to be invariably in advance. Address 

THOMAS B. FLORENCE, 
330 E street, Washington, D. C. 



The Constitutional Union Recommended and Indorsed. 

The Democratic and Conservative members of the Thirty-Eighth Congress, now m 
session, held a meeting at the Capitol, on Monday, January 12, 1864, when it was unani- 
mously 

"Resolved That the Democratic members of Congress earnestly recommend The Con- 
stitutional' Union, published in Washington, to the patronage and support of the l)i"»" 
cratic party of the United St ntes, as the fearless exponent of son"^*- roNGRESS 

LIBRAE LiiiiilllHUHIIIllllMli 




Hollinger 

pH8.5 

Mill Run F3-1719 



